The film refers to the land rights movement of Aboriginal Australians, with Darryl Kerrigan drawing an explicit parallel between his struggle and theirs. It also draws on one of the few rights protected in the Australian Constitution for subject matter, the right to just terms compensation for acquisition of property under s51(xxxi). Also interspersed in the film are many references to famous Australian Constitutional Law Cases, such as Mabo and the Tasmanian Dams Case. The film also deals with section 109 of the Constitution which provides that in the case of an inconsistency between Federal and State law, the Federal law shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.
For the purpose of the drama, some of the relevant legal principles are simplified. For example, the law relating to compulsory acquisition can be complicated and raises more questions than are noted in the film. Section 51 (xxxi) of the Commonwealth Constitution applies to acquisitions only by the Commonwealth, not by the States, and the latter are more likely to compulsorily acquire property.[10] Similarly, in contrast to Kerrigan's idea that the value he places on his own home cannot be bought, the law regularly places a monetary value on intangible human values.
